Talk:Iran–Saudi Arabia football rivalry

Arab conquest of Persia
Hi FutbalTeamha. If you read the sources given, you will see them pointing to Sunni-Shia clash between the countries, not "How Iranians (who were Zoroastrian at first) became Muslims today, following the religion founded in Arabian Peninsula". It's simply not mentioned as a reason for the rivalry in the sources, so it doesn't belong to the article. Please stop adding this irrelevant, unsourced, original-researched phrase. I assume you having good faith and respect your "personal reasons", but they should be kept personal. I also suggest you reading But it's true!.

Out of context, Muslim conquest of Persia was between 633–654 and Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam was between 1501–1736, occuring about 10 Centuries later. The convert would be more an eventual result of Ottoman–Persian Wars than Muslim conquest of Persia. Pahlevun (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok I respect that, but the religion didn't just show up out of nowhere. Showing the first and true origin of the rivalry would be best, and it has to be mentioned in there.--FutbalTeamha (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You should stop denying the history behind the origins of the Iran–Saudi Arabia football rivalry. First and foremost, the Arab conquest of Persia led to the "fissure" which has transcended into the footballing scene. If you open an article describing the religious origins, don't you think you should discuss how it all started? Your persistent edits are a violation of WP:CONFLICT.--FutbalTeamha (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, this is what you claim and you should provide a source for it and you don't. I'm just challenging your material. WP:V: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You are "fabricating" sources for your claim. FIFA source does not mention anything about this, but you are using it as a reference. WP:OR: "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources."

And about Iranica, it is totally irrelevant to the football rivalry. WP:OR: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

The only way you can put this in the article is "to provide reliable sourece" according to WP:V.

PS: Don't make the discussion personal. What I said about the material itself, was my personal opinion, and as I said "OUT OF CONTEXT". You can't add any content to the article and expect it not to be challenged by another editor. Instead of blaming me for having personal conflict, try to prove your claim with a reliable source.

PPS: Next time you're adding the sentence to the article, I expect to see at least one "reliable source mentioning it as a reason for this football rivalry", as said in WP:V and WP:OR. I don't hesitate to remove any material out of original research, such this.

PPPS: I moved the whole discussion here, because it started here and it's better to have the history in one place. Pahlevun (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, your revisions are a clear example of WP:CONFLICT: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. I provided educational sources that describe the actual origin of the rivalry, and you keep nitpicking around it saying that I'm not proving my claim. The Iranica source proves the history of the invasion and how the Zoroastrians surrendered and were pushed aside, while the FIFA source touches on the rivalry between the two national teams. Your personal interests in support of the Iranian regime conflict with the true history of the rivalry. Since you were the one to create the article with an "origins" section, I suggest you actually stick to the origin instead of trying to discredit it.--FutbalTeamha (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to say that I've removed the accusation from the above. Please don't throw around baseless accusations about other contributors. Thanks. — foxj 14:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no conflict of Interest. Find a reliable source, instead of labling me. What you are doing is called Synthesis of published materials. You find a reliable source, and I don't touch your edit. You are edit warring and it is going to cause a problem. Pahlevun (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Win-Loss Record
Shouldn't Saudi Arabia be listed as having 6 wins--and Iran 6 defeats--if two of the "draws" were won on PKs by KSA? HandsomeSam57 (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)